Andrews University Seminary Studies, Summer 1987, Vol. 25, No. 2, 183-199.

Copyright @ 1987 by Andrews University Press.

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL THEOLOGY OF

MARTIN LUTHER
PART 11: LUTHER'S EXPOSITION OF
DANIEL AND REVELATION
WINFRIED VOGEL
Marienhoehe Seminary
D-6100 Darmstadt
West Germany

In my earlier article in this series,' I treated in a general way a

number of aspects of Martin Luther's "eschatological theology,"
including the existential component in that theology, Luther's
allegorical application of apocalyptic language and symbols, his
attention to what he considered signs of the imminent advent of
Christ, his desire for the "dear last day," his concept(s) of the
antichrist, and others. The present essay explores a bit further the
great Reformer's eschatological theology by focusing specifically
on the attention he gave to the two Bible books that are generally
considered as full-fledged apocalypses-the O T book of Daniel and
the N T book of Revelation (the latter being also referred to as "the
Apocalypse" ).
1. Luther's Developing Attention to the Books
of Daniel and Revelation
It would appear that in his early reformational career, Luther
was not particularly interested in biblical apocalyptic. His negative
attitude in particular to the book of Revelation may be seen in the
appended position he gave that book (along with Hebrews, James,
and Jude) in the first edition of his N T in 1522 and in the preface
he also prepared for the same book in that NT edition.
However, as Luther's eschatological concerns deepened, his
interest in, and respect for, biblical apocalyptic grew. Factors involved in this were his practical-mindedness in seeing prophetic
'Winfried Vogel, "The Eschatological Theology of Martin Luther, Part I:
Luther's Basic Concepts," A USS 24 (1986):249-264.

184

WINFRIED VOGEL

fulfillments in events and entities of his own day and his growing
emphasis on the pope as the antichrist (or, as the main antichrist).
By 1529, the advance of the Turkish forces under Suleiman to the
very environs of Vienna (after their frightening earlier victories in
Christian Europe, including the disastrous defeat of the Hungarian
forces at Mohks in 1526) led Luther to hasten his translation of the
book of Daniel, placing it ahead of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (which,
in the order of biblical books, should obviously have been treated
first). From that time on, Luther refers, in his interpretation of Dan
7, to the "little horn" as the Turk, who fights "against the saints of
the Most High." We can imagine how convincing this sounded in
view of the fact, just mentioned above, that the Turks besieged
Vienna in 1529!
Our awareness of this typical phenomenon of Luther's making
specific applications of his Bible knowledge to his "here and now"
in not very practical terms must not, however, obscure for us the
fact that he was never totally carried away by those rather overwhelming political circumstances of his day. The spiritual significance always remained, even as he mentioned the Turk-not
just as a political threat, but primarily as a God-permitted scourge
on an ungodly Europe. Moreover, his concept of the Turk as
antichrist always took second place to his interpretation of the
papacy as the antichrist of Daniel and Revelation (and of Paul in
2 Thessalonians). That his main concern still focused on the papacy
is clearly evident from various observations Luther made, as we
shall see later. This concern appears to be inherent, as well, in his
remark that just as body and soul belong together, so it is with
regard to the antichrist: The spirit is the pope, and the flesh is the
Turk! "The Pope is a liar, and the Turk is a murderer," Luther
further declared; but if the two characteristics are combined, then
both lying and murdering are found in the pope.*
It should be pointed out that in his growing interest in
identifying the pope as antichrist, Luther certainly was informed
also by earlier expositions. Indeed, the uniqueness of Luther's
teaching on the antichrist did not lie in his referring to the papacy
thus, for this was an understanding he shared with others, notably
2Weimar Ausgabe of Luther's works, Tischreden 3: 158, no. 3055a. The Weimar
Ausgabe will hereinafter be cited as WA, with additional abbreviations for the
Briefwechsel (WA-Br), Deutsche Bibel (WA-DB), and Tischreden ( WA-Tr).

the Hussites in Bohemia, as Paul Althaus has pointed out.3 However, the Hussites' main concern was the unchristian life of the
pope, whereas Luther focused on the church's t e a ~ h i n gThis
. ~ new
approach assured not only wider attention but also more revolutionary and long-lasting results. And it is, as well, a demonstration
of Luther's holistic approach to theology-this interpretation
being, to his mind, a concrete building-block within his overall
theological concerns.
With this brief background, we are now ready to take a quick
overview of some of the specifics of the Reformer's interpretation in
his dealing with the books of Daniel and Revelation.
2. Luther's Interpretation of the Book of Daniel
It has recently been pointed out by W. Stanford Reid that
although the book of Revelation was a perennial favorite for all
kinds of interpretations and speculations in the time of Luther, the
prophet Daniel was preferred by many theologians, including
the R e f ~ r m e r .It~ seems, however, that Luther had originally
avoided comment on Daniel just as much as he had done with
regard to Revelation, and apparently for the same reason-namely,
because he did not want to participate in any of the speculative
interpretation which was so rampant in his time, and whose
originators he disparagingly called "superficial spirits" and "new
quibble masters." In fact, it is of interest to note that it was in the
very same year-1529-that
he wrote his introductions to both
Daniel and the Apocalypse (the latter introduction replacing his
earlier negative preface to the book of Revelation prepared in
1521/22).
It has been convincingly argued by Hans Volz that Luther's
interest in the book of Daniel was spurred by Philip Melanchthon,
who had related certain Daniel passages to the Turks before Luther
did so (and that it was spurred also, of course, by the quick advance
of the Turks to the gates of Vienna, mentioned earlier).7 Another
3In "Luthers Gedanken iiber die letzten Dinge," LJB 23 (1941): 30.
4WA 51: 598-600.
5W. Stanford Reid, "The Four Monarchies of Daniel in Reformation Historiography," in Historical Reflections 8/1 (Spring 1981): 115-123.
6Cf. W A 23: 485.
7 WA-DB 1 1/2: xxvi and passim.

186

WINFRIED VOGEL

inffuence might have been a pamphlet by the Wittenberg scholar

Justus Jonas, who had translated the seventh chapter of Daniel,
commented on it, and applied it to the Turks.*
A1though his Daniel Introduction of 1529 represents Luther's
first extensive application of the prophecies of Daniel, he had as
early as 1521 interpreted Dan 8:23-25 as pointing to the Pope as the
antichrist, as well as applying the little horn in Dan 7 to the
p a p a ~ yLuther
.~
interpreted the prophecies on the antichrist and on
the little horn in this general fashion, except that in Dan 8 he saw
both the pope and the Turk represented. In one of the table-talks
he is even quoted as bringing the pope, the Turk, and the antichrist
together into a combined interpretation of Dan 7 and Rev 13.1
Among these entities, however, it was the pope who remained the
chief object of Luther's attention.
In addition, Luther, obviously basing his interpretation of
Dan 8 mainly on the Maccabean Books, saw the little horn in that
chapter of Daniel as reflecting Antiochus Epiphanes.ll This Seleucid king he considered as the foreshadowing of the great antichrist,
described not only in Dan 8:23-25 but also in chap. 12 (a chapter
whose discussion Luther actually begins with 1l:36).l 2 The Reformer also viewed the Daniel material as a source for the Apostle
Paul's portrayal in 2 Thess 2.l3
Luther's interpretation of the four kingdoms in Dan 2 and
Dan 7 was along the traditional line-Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece, and Rome. Presumably, Luther relied here, and in other
ways, on Jerome's Daniel Commentary.14However, in focusing on
the contemporary political situation and seeing in the little horn of
Dan 7 the manifestation of the Turkish power, Luther added a
peculiar prophetic touch of his own. He derived comfort from the
fact that three horns of the fourth beast-namely, Egypt, Asia, and
Greece, in his view-had already been plucked out by the Turk. He
concluded therefrom that no other horn-i.e., no other nation81bid.,p. xxx; see also n. 94.
9WA 7: 722 and passim; 7: 744.
IOWA-Tr 3: 645,646, no. 3831.
"WA-DB 11/2: 14.
l*Ibid., p. 48.
'SIbid., p. 56.
141bid.,p. 6.

would have the same fate as those three and that therefore Germany
would be spared!15
The mention in Dan 7 of a judgment and of the new kingdom
was to Luther clear evidence that the end was fast approaching,
and for him the book of Daniel had thus become a source of
comfort "in these last times"16-a book which he commended to
all pious Christians to read." He says, in fact, that the book was
written for the sake of "the miserable Christians" and had been
saved for "this last time." la
In interpreting the 2300 days of Dan 8:14, Luther again
followed Jerome." He believed these days to be 6 1/4 years when
Antiochus raged against the Jews.
In the year 1530 Luther's attention to Daniel focused strongly
on the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24-27 and on an historical interpretation
of 11:Z-35. The 70 weeks were, in fact, treated quite extensively
by the Reformer, and the result is indeed noteworthy. Acknowledging these 70 weeks as 490 literal years, Luther refers to Haggai,
Zechariah, and Ezra 6 for a clue as to their beginning. Relying
apparently on royal genealogies by pseudo-Metasthenes and pseudoPhilo,lg Luther begins with Darius Hyastasapes as the very king
who issued the decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. However,
Luther seems hardly ever to state the exact year with which to
begin the 70 weeks-at least, not in terms of the usual chronological
reckoning. In his Supputatio annorum mundi of 1541 and 1545, in
which he begins his chronology with Adam and paradise, he gives
the year 3510 (after Creation) as the starting point for the 70
weeks-which, according to him, was the second year of Darius.
In the same chronology, Jesus was born 450 years later-in the
year 3960-and died exactly 33 1/2 years afterwards, in the middle
of the 70th week.20We should not fail to notice, however, that in
1523, when Luther for the first time tried to calculate the 70 weeks,
151bid.,p. 12.
'"A-Br 5:242, line 11, to Nikolaus Hausmann on Feb. 25, 1530.
17WA-DB11/2: 128.
'arbid., p. 383, in the dedicatory letter of his Daniel translation to Johann
Friedrich, Duke of Saxony.
lgThese are believed to be scholarly forgeries that were first published by the
Italian Dominican Giovanni Nanni (Annius). See ibid., p. xliii.
20WA53: 107, 124, 125.

188

WINFRIED VOGEL

he reckoned backwards from the 30th year of Christ and arrived at

the 20th year of Cambyses as the beginning of those 70 weeks or
490 years.2' In 1530 Luther mentioned this date again, alongside
his new proposal for a dating from the reign of Darius, which he
now seemed to favor. He observed that in trying to harmonize the
two possible calculations, as well as in figuring out the first one,
there is a time lapse of three years. But Luther was not the least
embarrassed, and he justified the discrepancy by simply saying that
in such grand time calculations it is difficult to pinpoint the exact
day and hour, and that therefore one should be content with being
so close to acc~racy.~2
Later, however, in his Supputatio he applied
a more mechanical approach, as mentioned above.
While in his Daniel exposition Luther passes by chap. 10
rather quickly, he concentrates his attention on chap. 11 and
supposes that he gives help here against confusion over so many
names and persons apparently referred to in that chapter.Z3Then,
contrary to the usual tradition, Luther begins his treatment of
chap. 12 with 11:36, as mentioned earlier. He sees at this point in
chap. 11 the end of a mere description of historical events and the
beginning of a prophecy of the last time. This also marks for him
the transition point at which the pope becomes the real Antiochus.
Interestingly enough, one of the first indications for Luther that
the pope is meant here is the phrase in vs. 37 that the king shall
not regard the lure of women-which Luther connects with the
pope's forbidding of clerical marriage. But above all, Luther sees
the "bright Gospel" shining through again.24In the form of this
concluding prophecy in Daniel, it is especially given for the last
time.
After voicing his desire that someone else should have taken
care of chap. 12 in Daniel in order to "strengthen our faith and to
awaken our hope for the blessed day of our salvation," Luther
acknowledges the fact that no one else had done this, and so
proceeds with his own interpretation.25 This discussion becomes,
2lWA 11: 334.
22WA-DB11/2: 22.
*31bid.,pp. 32, 34.
Z4Ibid., p. 48: "Darumb ist hie keine Historien mehr zu suchen, sondern, das
helle Euangelion zeigt und sagt itzt einem jedern wol, wer der Rechte Antiochus
sei. . . ."
25Ibid., p. 50.

in fact, the climax of his whole commentary on Daniel, in which

he devotes to Dan 12 more than double the space that he has given
to the entire rest of the book! Also, he makes his exposition of this
chapter one of his masterpieces on the subject of the papacy and its
evil effects. But as was usual for him, the Reformer ends his treatise
on a joyful note. He anticipates the "promised and certain" future
return of our Savior Jesus Christ as a "blessed and glad salvation
from this vale of misery and woe." 26
Although Luther's interpretation of Daniel was somewhat
influenced by traditional views and could not always free itself
from the interpretations of forebears and contemporaries, it still
shows remarkable creativity and freshness of thought, especially
when dealing with the central eschatological concern of the book
of Daniel. Perhaps Luther's main innovation with regard to interpretation of Daniel was his incorporation of the Turks; but even
here, his treatment clearly indicates that he successfully escaped the
pitfall of a mere sensational approach that would take into account
only the happenings in the present world. Indeed, there were some
inconsistencies in Luther's interpretation of symbols, such as the
little horn. Nevertheless, in light of his understanding of his own
time and in view of his fervent desire for a soon-returning Christ,
he still deserves commendation for not losing sight of the eschatological gospel contained in the book of Daniel, and for demonstrating an appreciation of the real spiritual dimensions of the
controversy revealed in that book.
3. Luther's Interpretation of the Book of Revelation
As we noted in the first section of this article, Luther's attitude
towards the Apocalypse underwent a marked and rather drastic
change during the time between 1522 and 1529/30. The first of
these years saw the publication of a brief preface, in which Luther
almost totally rejected the book of Revelation, because to him it did
not reveal Christ. At that time he looked upon it as being neither
apostolic nor prophetic (apostles, he felt, preach with simple and
clear words!), and he also considered that there were "many of the
fathers" who had dismissed the book? Indeed, the Reformer felt

190

WINFRIED VOGEL

himself in darkness regarding John's visions and descriptions and

could not interpret them. More over, he was apparently afraid of
being classified with those who claimed all kinds of divergent and
speculative meanings to be the correct interpretation of the book.28
It is even possible to conclude, as does H.-U. Hofmann, that
Luther regarded the Apocalypse as ap0cryphal.2~
By 1529/30, however, Luther came to have a much more favorable attitude toward the Apocalypse, as we have also noted. This
new outlook toward the book of Revelation most probably originated in Luther's concern over the same situation that led to his
translation of, and comment on, the book of Daniel, prepared in
the same year. By now Luther was willing to acknowledge the
striking relationship between these two prophetic books-at least,
insofar as they both seemed to him to deal with the papacy and
were both for "comfort in this last time.'' And thus, it is interesting
to take note of Luther's new approach to prophecy in this second
introduction to Revelation. In it he distinguishes between certain
types of prophecy: first, in clear words; second, in pictures and
dreams with their interpretation: and third; as in the Apocalypse,
only in pictures and symbols, without an accompanying interpretation. As long as this last type of prophecy is not interpreted, it is,
says Luther, "hidden" and "mute." Nevertheless, and in any case,
it is "given by the Holy Spiritv-a statement that is in sharp
contrast to Luther's first preface of 1522.
Hofmann in his seminal work on Luther and the Apocalypse
has recently pointed out that in order to gain a correct understanding of the Reformer's relationship to the book of Revelation,
it would be most helpful to have an overview of his use of this last
book of the Bible in his entire work.31Hofmann has taken upon
himself this painstaking task and consequently has come up with
some quite interesting results, which are presented in statistical
tables and their interpretation by the author. What concerns us
most, in the context of this article, however, is simply to get a
general idea of how Luther used the Apocalypse and how his
28Ibid., p. 408, lines 9-24.
29Hans-Ulrich Hofmann, Luther und die Johannes-Apokalypse
1982), p. 296.
3OWA-DB 7: 408, line 11.
31Hofmann,pp. 9-10.

(Tiibingen,

understanding of it contributed to the eschatological nature of his

theology.
It is important to note that despite his new and more positive
attitude towards the book of Revelation by 1529/30, Luther still did
not see fit to offer his interpretation of it with the same conviction
and certainty that he manifested with regard to the prophecies of
Daniel. In dealing with Revelation, he saw his efforts merely as a
proposal "to cause others . . . to think."32 Hofmann is certainly
correct in his assertion that Luther eventually took upon himself
the task of interpreting the Apocalypse because he now wanted to
show those "irresponsible Spirits" with their "allegorical playing
around" how it could and should be done.33 Thus, it seems that the
situation in the church and in the world toward the end of 1529
was incentive enough for Luther to be motivated in to approaching
this book because of the very reason that earlier had kept him from
doing so.
Luther's major hermeneutical principle applicable here, next
to the one that asks for the Scripture text to interpret itself, is the
one that takes into account the history of the church and the world
and compares that history with the pictures that John describesthis in order to see what had been fulfilled already by Luther's time
and what was still pending. Luther's main purpose in using this
principle was to arrive at an "indisputable inter~retation."3~
Highlights of this interpretation include, first of all, Luther's
preterist view of the seven churches of chaps. 2 and 3. Then, the
fourth and fifth chapters, he felt, contain visions and pictures that
depict Christendom-i.e., the church-here on earth.35In order to
give an impression of Luther's way of doing exegesis, it may be of
interest to point out that in his interpretation of Rev 5:8 he saw the
"playing with harps" as signifying "preaching."36 This kind of
allegorizing is quite common with Luther, and it reveals his preoccupation with certain ideas and his readiness to apply these ideas
to the text. Thus, in a sense, he unwittingly fell into the very trap
that he so desperately wanted to avoid.
32WA-DB 7: 408, lines 20-22.
33Hofmann,p. 410.
34WA-DB7: 408, lines 22-30.
35Ibid.,p. 43 1; cf. gloss to Rev 4:l.
361bid.,p. 410, lines 1-7.

192

WINFRIED VOGEL

Chaps. 6 and 7 in the Apocalypse Luther interpreted as a

picture of unfolding world history and then church history in
particular. In this panorama angels play a rather important role:
The evil angels are heretics, and good angels are the "holy fathers,
like Spirido, Athanasius, Hilary, and the Council of Nicea." 37
In this vein, Luther also offers a very concrete application of
the seven trumpets of chaps. 9 through 11. These trumpets, played
by (apparently for Luther) evil angels, depict seven major heretics
during the early period of church history. However, Luther does
not intend to present them in chronological order, but rather has
systematic aspects in mind. The first trumpet is Tatian, with his
righteousness by works; the second must be Marcion, with his
followers, such as now "Muentzer and the Schwermer"; the third
angel is Origen, with his allegorical interpretations; the fourth is
Novatus and later the Donatists;38 the fifth represents "Arius, the
great heretic, and his companions"; and the sixth is "the evil
Mahometh."39 After dealing thus with the first six trumpets in
Rev 9, Luther proceeds to Rev 10 and sees the angel with the little
book as being in the line of the preceding six trumpeting angels.
This seventh angel, or heretic, is the pope, who spreads human
teaching-in contrast to the angel with the pure Gospel in Rev
14%-7.40 The seventh trumpet, in Rev 11:15 (in Luther, 12:1), is,
according to the Reformer, a repetition of the one in chap. 10, with
the only difference being that the angel in chap. 10 is the spiritual
pope, whereas the one in chap. 11 is the secular (or worldly)
In chaps. 11 and 12 Luther sees two comforting pictures: the
visions of the two witnesses and of the pregnant woman and the
dragon. These "are to show that there are yet some pious teachers
and Christians that remain."4* Luther says surprisingly little in
interpreting chap. 12, although he uses pericopes from it in
37Ibid., lines 18-25.
38Ibid., lines 3 1-33.
"Ibid., p. 443; cf. gloss to Rev 9:l and 9:13; see also ibid., p. 412, lines
10-11, 18, 19.
40Ibid., p. 445; cf. gloss to Rev 10:9; see also ibid., p. 412, lines 20-22.
4lIbid., p. 449; cf. gloss to Rev 12:l.
**Ibid.,p. 412, lines 27-28.

sermons, hymns, and apologetic statements. 43 One interpretation

that he does provide is with reference to the woman that flees from
the dragon into the wilderness: This is "the church that is hidden
from [literally, "under'' ] the papacy. " 44
Up to this point Luther seems to have prepared the way
for the climactic chap. 13, to which he gives his full attention,
because he sees in the two beasts of this pericope a clear reference
to "the papal empire and the imperial papacy": "The papacy," he
declares, "brings the secular sword under its control" by giving the
fallen Roman Empire to the Germans.45 This trandatio irnperii for
Luther is the healing of the deadly wound in 13:3. Hofmann correctly points out that here may be seen a clear connection with
Luther's Daniel interpretation-one
that helps to explain the
lasting presence of the fourth kingdom of Daniel until the end of
the ~ o r l d . ~ 6
Why Luther held this view on the two beasts of Rev 13 in
1529/30, while declaring the first beast to be the Turk in 1539,
when the Turkish threat was not so immediate and strong as it had
been in I529 or 1532, is somewhat puzzling. Perhaps this can be
regarded as another piece of evidence for Luther's main interest in
dealing with the pope, who, in his view, was the church's foremost
enemy. In any case, Luther's interpretation in 1529/30 did manifest
a dependence on, and embeddedness in, the circumstances of the
contemporary political and ecclesiastical scene, for in a description
of the devil's last wrath, he interprets the "second woe" (sixth
trumpet) as "Mahometh and the Saracens" and the "third woe"
(seventh trumpet) as "the papacy and the Emperor.'' The latter two
are joined by the Turk, Gog, and Magog; and "in this most miserable and horrible way Christendom in all t'he world is plagued
from all sides by false teachings and wars, by book and sword."
This, Luther adds, "is the rock bottom [grund suppel" and "is
followed by pictures of comfort concerning the end to such woes and
abornina tion. "47
43Cf.Hofmann, pp. 426-427.
44WA-DB4: 501, line 33: "Ecclesia latet sub papatu."
45 WA-DB 7: 414, lines 2-8.
4WoErnann,p. 429.
47WA-DB 7: 414, lines 17-24.

194

WINFRIED VOGEL

In treating Rev 13 Luther could not refrain from commenting

on the mysterious number "666" of vs. 18. In the margin next to
this verse he put the note: "These are six hundred and sixty-six
years. For so long [a period] will the secular papacy last."48
According to one of his table talks, Luther saw the beginning of
the secular papacy with the crowning of Charlemagne by Leo I11
in 800."49 Since it was not important for Luther that the years fit
exactly, he expected the end of the papacy in his own time. Then
he also split the number "666" into smaller units and applied these
to letters of the alphabet, but there is uncertainty as to which word
or even which language he had in mind.50
Rev 14 brings, according to Luther, the counterattack of the
Word of God against the papacy-this in the figure of the angel
with the eternal Gospel, the first of three angels with messages in
vss. 6-11. Here it is interesting to recall that Luther never rejected
the identification that had been suggested by Michael Stifel and
others that it was Luther himself who was symbolized by this
ange1.51 This conviction, of course, gave an even greater impetus to
the life and work to which the Reformer felt himself called. It
dramatically added to his apocalyptic message, and in his own
mind it must have placed him near the center of his eschatological
theology, with its emphasis on the coming of Christ, the end of the
world, and the role of the papacy.
As to the second angel of Rev 14:8, he announces the papacy,
declares Luther; and here the Reformer is very clear on the equation
of Babylon with the spiritual papacy.52The third angel in the
series is not even mentioned by Luther.
For Luther, the last part of chap. 14 and all of chap. 15
provide a description of judgment and of the wrath of God coming
upon those who adhere to the papacy and resist the gospel. Chap.
16 has an even greater counterattack of God's Word against the
papacy; and interestingly enough, the angels with the bowls are
considered as symbolizing "learned, pious preachers." The picture
481bid.,p. 453.
49 WA- Tr 4: 108; lines 18-22.
50Hofmann,pp. 432-433. Hofmann calls attention to Bousset's suggestion that
Luther had in mind the Hebrew term for "Roman" (with "Empire" understood).
SISeeVogel, p. 257, and Hofmann, p. 434.
52 WA-DB 7:414, lines 29-30.

of the three frogs in 16:13 Luther uses to caricature "the Sophists,

like Faber, Eck, Emser, etc." 53
Rev 17 introduces the harlot, which for Luther was another
description of the papacy-a description which he used quite often
in order to demonstrate the rise and corruption of the Roman
Church. The interpretational gloss that Luther gives for the seven
heads and ten horns of the beast carrying the woman as being
specific nations of his own time shows once again how much he
lived in the contemporary scene and tried to apply Scripture and
especially its apocalyptic literature to the "here-and-now. " 54 The
same is true for his view on the destruction of Babylon in chap. 18,
which, as pointed out by Hofpann, Luther applied to the sack of
Rome in 1527 and the assault on the Vatican by imperial troops.55
The white horse of 19:11 plays a decisive role in the Reformer's
interpretation of the book of Revelation and in his expectation of
the end of the age. Here he sees the Word of God that goes to a
triumphant victory over "the protectors of the pope," 56 and which
causes "both beasts and the prophet" to be thrown into hell5' (an
anticipation, perhaps, of the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 and the
ultimate victory of the Protestant confession?).
In any case, it is significant that Luther thought the prophecies of the book of Revelation had been fulfilled u p to and
including the white horse of 19:ll. This he declared to be the case
in 1536, in a table talk recorded for that year. On the same occasion
Luther also remarked that in his opinion the end would come
before 100 years would pass.S8
Concerning Rev 20, Luther's introduction to the Apocalypse
of I529/3O interprets Gog and Magog as a manifestation of the
Turks. (A little later, while at the Coburg Castle in the summer of
1530, he translated Ezek 38 and 39, and in a preface and glossaries
therewith he set forth the same view.59)With regard to the millennium, Luther suggests that this time period began with the writing
531bid.,p, 414, lines 25-29, and p. 416, lines 3-7.
54Cf.
ibid., p. 463, gloss to Rev 17:9-14.
55Hofrnann,p. 444.
56 WA-DB 7: 467, gloss to Rev l9:ll.
57lbid., p. 470.
5sWA-Tr3: 921, lines 25-28.
59 WA 30/2: 223, lines 4- 13.

196

WINFRIED VOGEL

of the Apocalypse and ended with the appearance of the Turks.GOIf

he had set the date for the Apocalypse at around A.D. 95, which he
never did explicitly, he would have seen the end of the 1,000 years
with the First Crusade around A.D. 1095. We have already noted in
the previous article in this series that in 1540 Luther held a slightly
different view-starting the millennium with Christ's birth and
concluding it with the accession of Pope Gregory VII in A.D. 1073.61
Luther ends his preface to the Apocalypse with statements of
comfort and warning. In fact, he sees the whole purpose of the
book as embracing these two contrasting aspects. We should be
comforted because Christendom will receive the final victory over
all its enemies, he says, but at the same time we should also be
warned to guard against heresies and all "annoying evils" that
have crept into the Christian church, have distorted her testimony
before the world, and have thereby provided an obstacle to the faith
of many. The last sentence in the preface is one of expressed
comfort: "We should not doubt that Christ will be with us
and near us, even if it comes to the worst. Here in this book we
see that Christ amidst and above all plagues, beasts, and evil
angels. will nevertheless be with and near to his saints and will
finally triumph." 62
4. History and Effects of Woodcuts
to the Apocalypse

Our discussion of Luther's understanding of the Apocalypse

would not be complete without mentioning one of the most powerful means the Reformer employed to convey the message that is
contained in the book-namely, the woodcuts. Twenty-one of these,
most of them apparently created by Lukas Cranach, a personal
friend of Luther, appeared in Luther's first NT, the so-called
"September Bible."63 The triple-crown on the heads of the beast

'jOWA-DB7: 469, gloss to Rev 20:3.

61Vogel,p. 256; cf. the chart on p. 259.
62WA-DB 7: 420, lines 14-17.
%ee, e.g., Ph. Schmidt, Der Zllustration der Lutherbibel 1522-1700 (Basel,
1962), pp. 93-98; Kenneth A. Strand, Woodcuts to the Apocalypse in Diirer's Time:
Albrecht Durer's Woodcuts Plus Five Other Sets from the 15th and 16th Centuries
(Ann Arbor, M I , 1968), p. 37. Schmidt reproduces a number of these in reduced size

LUTHER'S ESCHATOLOGICAL THEOLOGY

197

(Rev 11 and 16) and the harlot (Rev 17) rather unambiguously
demonstrates Luther's interpretation of certain passages. It appears
that Duke George of Albertine Saxony protested to his cousin
Frederick the Wise and succeeded in getting the triple-crown
reduced to a single crown in Luther's "December Testament"
of 1 522.64
But now something interesting happened. Jerome Emser, Duke
George's court secretary, bought the woodcuts from Cranach (with
Luther's consent), so as to include them in his own Bible that was
meant to compete with Luther's. Thus, in this Catholic Bible of
1527, even though the single crown appeared in the woodcuts for
Rev 11, 16, and 17, some of the polemical scenes from Luther's
Bible were reproduced-such as the portrayal of the second beast of
chap. 13 (the beast from the land) as wearing a monk's cowl, and
the depictions for chaps. 14 and 18 of the fall of Babylon as the
destruction of Rome.65
With regard to Luther's own Bible editions, the triple-crown
reappeared in his first complete Bible of 1534. This Bible had a
series of twenty -six woodcuts for the Apocalypse.66 Taken over,
copied, and slightly altered by various artists (Holbein, Brosamer,
Woensam, and others), the woodcuts from Luther's first N T appeared not only in Bibles but also independently, making these
illustrations a powerful communicator during Luther's own time
of the message that he wished so fervently to proclaim.
Art historians have pointed out that these woodcuts have also
had another interesting effect. In a number of monasteries in the
monk's Republic of Athos, Greece, there are cycles of monumental
frescoes of twenty-one illustrations each, the first probably prepared
in the year 1547. Though these appear in Greek iconic style, they
are said to be large copies of the woodcuts from Luther's N T of
1X?Z. They even include the illustration of the Babylonian harlot
-

(nos. 47-51, 53, 54, 56-58, and 60, on pp. 99-103, 105, 106, 108~110,112). The entire
set is reproduced by Strand in full size (nos. 33-43, 45-49, 51, and 53-56, on
pp. 38-48, 50-54, 56, 58-61).
64Seethe notation by Schmidt on p. 95, no. 11. Strand has placed all three
woodcuts in both forms on facing pages (nos. 43, 44, on pp. 48, 49; nos. 49, 50, on
pp. 54, 55; and nos. 51, 52, on pp. 56, 57).
"Cf. Hofmann, p. 325; also woodcuts 46,47, and 53 in Strand, pp. 51,52, and 58.
%ee Strand, p. 73. The woodcuts themselves are reproduced as nos. 78-103 on
pp. 74-86.

198

WINFRIED VOGEL

with the triple cr0wn.~7These frescoes demonstrate again the

powerful influence that the Luther-Bible woodcuts had, even apart
from the written word, for the Apocalypse was not recognized as
canonical in the Greek Orthodox Church!
Luther's intent was to make the Bible accessible and readable
to the common person in the street, and he duly realized that
woodcuts were an invaluable help in accomplishing this goal.
Interestingly enough, when baroque Bible illustrations ceased, the
people's interest in illustrated books of the Bible like the Apocalypse
also subsided.68
5. Conclusion
The survey of the eschatological themes in Luther's writings as
presented in my earlier article and of his interpretation of biblical
apocalyptic literature as set forth in the present article not only
shows clearly his vivid interest in the end of the age and coming of
Christ but also reveals that his understanding of the eschaton
strongly protruded into his life and theological thought. Apocalyptic
prophecy was not something the Reformer dealt with only from
time to time; it was not simply one interesting feature of Scripture
among others. I would propose that Luther in his daily activity and
ongoing theological enterprise was continually driven by his fervent
desire for the consummation of all things and by his firm conviction
that events and developments in church, society, and the political
arena were the direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
This study also shows that there need not be any suspicion on
our part that for Luther eschatology meant sectarian rigidity, egocentric particularity, or ethical and social passivity. For him it
meant quite the opposite, as evidenced by his lively interest in the
things that were going on around him. In many instances he even
interfered with pen and voice when he deemed it his Christian
responsibility to do so. It would be difficult to make Luther an
adherent of quietism.
A number of NT scholars today locate the "core" of the Apostle
Paul in the apocalyptic texture of his t h o ~ g h t . ~Perhaps
g
it is not
67See Hofmann, pp. 327-328.
68Cf.Schmidt, p. 392.
%ee, e.g., J. Christian Beker, Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 16,
17; esp. note 19.

far-fetched, therefore, to claim that inasmuch as Paul's writings had

such a strong and penetrating inff uence on Luther's thought, the
Reformer incorporated the Apos t1e's apocalyptic drive in to his own
theology. Luther's apocalyptic perspective in no way dethrones his
concept and message of sola f ide, but rather strengthens it in the true
biblical sense.